What should ‘holistic advice’ really mean?

AMI Chief Executive Robert Sinclair discusses his interpretation of holistic advice and what it means for the industry…

Industry must protect the mental health of advisers – Robert Sinclair

We know that mental health and finances are intrinsically linked, and that’s not just when it comes to our customers…

Finalised guidance on financial promotions on social media

As part of their bid to tackle poor quality financial promotions on social media, the FCA has released their finalised social media guidance…

Your April ’24 update from AMI Chief Executive Robert Sinclair

AMI Chief Executive Robert Sinclair gives his April update, including the Mortgage Charter and AMI’s thoughts on the FCA Fees & Levies proposals…

April 2024 Latest FOS complaints – AMI comments

Latest FOS complaints that may be of interest to mortgage intermediary firms, including AMI’s comments…

FCA Consultation on Fees & Levies for 2024/25

Members may have seen that the FCA issued their annual consultation on the fees charged to firms on Tuesday 9th March – AMI comments…

Edit Content

Log in here for full access to all our great content


Please log in below with your username (which is your email address), using all lower-case letters.


Forgotten your password?
No problem, simply tell us you have forgotten your password to receive instructions instantly via email.

Having problems logging in?
If you are a current member but are unable to login, please first make sure you are using all lower-case letters for your username/email address. If you still have difficulties, please contact us via email at info@a-m-i.org.uk so we can rectify your problem.

Not a member?
Learn more about the benefits of becoming a member or apply online and we will be in touch.

AMI responds to launch of the Lloyds broker fee policy

AMI does not consider that it is the role of a lender to dictate the fee policy of FCA regulated intermediary firms.  FCA Consumer Duty is clear that each entity is responsible for its own fair value assessment and indeed the rules indicate that it is for the advisory firms at the end of the chain to make the assessment that all costs, including that the total cost of borrowing is suitable for the consumer.  This policy interjects the lender into the wrong part of the process.

AMI has no issue with the amounts cited in these Lloyds Group announcements nor lenders actively reviewing fees internally.  The issue is the principle of going public with this information and the loss of trust it signals in the ability of intermediary firms to accurately assess the fair value of their own service offerings. We are concerned that this move will encourage other lenders to add their policies to the public domain, adding layers of confusion, with a range of ‘fee caps’ that will not act in the interests of all consumers.  AMI does not wish to see consumers being excluded from some lenders because of their fees policy which would still be the best and cheapest outcome for the consumer.

Under Competition Law, placing a cap on fees could also be seen by some as an unfair restraint on trade or an attempt to introduce “resale price maintenance”.  AMI is concerned that some intermediaries will see this as a market norm and gravitate their fees policy towards it.

This policy announcement has already provoked much debate in the intermediary community via social media.  By defining this as a broker policy it misses the point on the work done by fully qualified and regulated advisory firms.

Robert Sinclair, AMI Chief Executive says:

“This intervention in the market by publication of this policy is unhelpful.  I have been aware for some time that Lloyds Banking Group along with other lenders have been monitoring intermediary fees and having both informal and formal discussions with firms to establish “fairness” and appropriateness.  To date these discussions have been relevant and helpful.

I do not think that regulation has dictated to lenders that they should determine the fees an intermediary charges.  It stretches their Consumer Duty accountabilities to an extreme. We support fee “outliers” being challenged by regulators and networks in a constructive way, not by those whose products we are advising on and distributing. That seems to me to be a slippery slope towards price-setting for a market and potentially restricting consumer choice.”


Forgot Password?

Join Us